TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
2 edits |  Most of these groups are concerned with generic drug issue
Most of these 100 groups mentioned could care less about ISP privacy. Their issue is about continuing to allow 3rd world countries to continue pirating patented drugs and making HIV & other drugs available without paying off 1st world drug companies for producing the drugs.
»www.essentialaction.org/access/u···gnon.rtf
And as far as the not-democratic charge - the ELECTED representatives of these countries will sign off on the treaty. So I guess democracy isn't being threatened either.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| Those poor bastards (sarcasm), it's not like they aren't still making money hand over fist on their pills... I have little sympathy for this racket.
As for elected reps signing off, that doesn't change the fact that these "secret" laws affect democratic populations of people, or do you think of democracies as simply dictatorships with a happy face sticker on the flag?
Seems you also forget that elected representatives are also obligated to disclose WHAT they actually do...
They work for us, we don't work for them. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by amungus  :Seems you also forget that elected representatives are also obligated to disclose WHAT they actually do... They work for us, we don't work for them. And when the treaty is finalized and submitted for ratification, then you get to see what they will vote on. Why do you think you are entitled to drafts and works in progress?
I know why these groups want to see the drafts - they want to sabotage the whole process because they want piracy to continue. All part of their anti-corporate jihad.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to TKJunkMail
Yes, that's it. Let's let people DIE so the CEO can afford his 2nd mistress and his new ferrari for his house on the Vineyard. So WHAT if they copy the drug? It's not like they are selling it in the US. Of course, in the US, you get ripped off, so the average american (42K/year), can't even afford the medicine they need to stay alive. "let them eat cake" cried Dubyah, "if they can't afford to pay, then they should die"
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
hopeflicker
Capitalism breeds greed
Premium
join:2003-04-03
Long Beach, CA
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by amungus :Seems you also forget that elected representatives are also obligated to disclose WHAT they actually do... They work for us, we don't work for them. . All part of their anti-corporate jihad. How sweet of you. Lumping pirates in with terrorists. |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| reply to karlmarx
Drug companies aren't as profitable as you seem to think they are. If pirating the drug potentially saves the lives of say, 500 people overseas, but the reduction in the drug companies finances means that drugs in the pipeline are cancelled, potentially killing 1,000 people who could have been helped, what is the right course of action? (And all numbers are potentials, since that drug in the pipeline could have been a waste of money, or the pirated drug could be contaminated due to low quality standards and hurt more than it helps, etc. etc.) |
|
cho0b
join:2006-09-26
united state
| reply to TKJunkMail
I've watched your comments for a long while... I can't tell if you're just looking past the bad and trying to squeeze out some good or what.
I wonder if George Bush would ever think about using one of his mighty signing statements to stop piracy. I mean, he's already used them to stop the Bill of Rights.
Why aren't we entitled to see his signing statements? Why did the president give himself the power to be a legislator?
What do you think about that? Aren't the terrorists winning if we let them rape our Constitution?
p.s. terrorists=pirates? Right? Riiiight. Mkay. |
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Why do you think you are entitled to drafts and works in progress? Because they are MY legislators, working by the grace of MY dollar, writing legislation that affects ME.
That's why I AM ENTITLED.
Why might you suppose that Americans shouldn't be fully informed of business centric legislation, that further restrains citizens?
*chirp*
*chirp*
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to EPS
said by EPS :Drug companies aren't as profitable as you seem to think they are. [...] Hahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha. And the moon is made of green cheese. George Bush is a scholar. And filtering/capping/throttling/banning users cures "piracy." Please do yourself a favor and wake up. |
|
bjbrock
join:2002-10-28
Mcalester, OK | reply to TKJunkMail
Because in out democracy the drafting is being done by my representative. I have a right to know what my rep is doing.
Perhaps you are not familiar with how a democracy is supposed to work. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by bjbrock :Because in out democracy the drafting is being done by my representative. I have a right to know what my rep is doing. Perhaps you are not familiar with how a democracy is supposed to work. And perhaps you don't understand how treaties are negotiated. They are done away from the public eye or no treaty would ever be drafted due to pressures brought by populist groups from around the world.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Most of these 100 groups mentioned could care less about ISP privacy. Their issue is about continuing to allow 3rd world countries to continue pirating patented drugs and making HIV & other drugs available without paying off 1st world drug companies for producing the drugs. Without looking, so what?
Negotiating in secret on matters that will affect all of us is bad on its face.
said by TKJunkMail :And as far as the not-democratic charge - the ELECTED representatives of these countries will sign off on the treaty. So I guess democracy isn't being threatened either. Could democracy stand if public debate isn't allowed? Our system is a system of checks and balances, and one of those big checks is the ability to scrutinize what the government is doing.
When wikileaks exposed ACTA, some of the proposals there seemed like distant reaches. But, lately, I'm beginning to see some convergence between ACTA and some of the proposals recently made by legislators and industry. Coincidence?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
Toguro
join:2003-10-23
Ottawa, IL
| reply to EPS
This is from one of many sites.
Pfizer Annual Revenue: $48.4 billion ($12.9 billion is profit).
»nymag.com/news/features/2007/profit/32900/
maybe if they pirate there drugs they will stop making so many herpes commercials. |
|
o2cool8
join:2002-04-19
Miami, FL
1 edit | reply to SilverSurfer
said by SilverSurfer :said by EPS :Drug companies aren't as profitable as you seem to think they are. [...] Hahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha. And the moon is made of green cheese. George Bush is a scholar. And filtering/capping/throttling/banning users cures "piracy." Please do yourself a favor and wake up. He has a point, although I wouldn't go on and say they aren't profitable. The reason they companies are profitable is because they have a 10 year window to sell their new drug before anyone can make a generic. When you buy a name brand, you are paying for the research and money put into making that drug, not just the cost of the ingredients. If they allow any company to copy a new drug, then companies would have no incentive to research for new drugs and nothing new will ever come out to the market again.
Edit: I would like to add that I do agree new drugs should be cheaper, however letting anyone copy a new drug is NOT the answer. Maybe allow the company to re-cope its initial investment into the drug plus 5% or 10% on top of that. Once that has been reached or 10 years(which ever comes first), then open the drug to generics. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :And perhaps you don't understand how treaties are negotiated. They are done away from the public eye or no treaty would ever be drafted due to pressures brought by populist groups from around the world. Look at our copyright laws now, and look at the sorry state of our patent system. These knuckleheads are the ones we're letting talk in secret?
One thing is clear -- our government and our populace are not on the same page WRT intellectual property. And the longer we keep pretending that we are, the longer we delay the solutions that would benefit artist, inventor, and consumer alike.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | reply to EPS
said by EPS :Drug companies aren't as profitable as you seem to think they are. That's not a very helpful way to think about it.
Item by item, it's a pretty big gamble. R&D costs are high, litigation risks are high, and payoffs are high. Some companies are small and only have a few items in development -- they've never made a dime. Some tiny companies have hit the lottery jackpot. Some large companies spread their risk and profit more slowly on a percentage basis. And, frankly, there's nothing wrong with this part of the pharmaceutical industry.
said by EPS :If pirating the drug potentially saves the lives of say, 500 people overseas, but the reduction in the drug companies finances means that drugs in the pipeline are cancelled, potentially killing 1,000 people who could have been helped, what is the right course of action? If those 500 people weren't going to get the drug by paying for it, then how does allowing them to die help anyone at all? How does manufacturing it and allowing them to live hurt anyone at all?
Don't get me wrong -- there is a problem here. Taking that formula from the US (where costs and risks are high) to some legitimate critical needs of the 3rd world may have zero immediate effect for that drug's market success or failure. That said -- within a year, legitimate buyers will start going to to the free sources, instead.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
st7860
join:2004-05-13
San Francisco, CA
| reply to SilverSurfer
said by SilverSurfer :said by EPS :Drug companies aren't as profitable as you seem to think they are. [...] Hahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha. And the moon is made of green cheese. George Bush is a scholar. And filtering/capping/throttling/banning users cures "piracy." Please do yourself a favor and wake up. i hereby and solemnly declare +1 |
|
La Luna
Surviving Ashraful
Premium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
·Vonage
1 edit | reply to cho0b
said by cho0b :I've watched your comments for a long while... I can't tell if you're just looking past the bad and trying to squeeze out some good or what. I wonder if George Bush would ever think about using one of his mighty signing statements to stop piracy. I mean, he's already used them to stop the Bill of Rights. Why aren't we entitled to see his signing statements? Why did the president give himself the power to be a legislator? What do you think about that? Aren't the terrorists winning if we let them rape our Constitution? p.s. terrorists=pirates? Right? Riiiight. Mkay. Well that didn't take long....six posts until some clueless one blames George Bush, lmao!
Has it occurred to you that George Bush might not even be in office when this treaty, IF it ever happens, goes through? Might be your Golden Boy wielding that mighty pen. And if you think he won't, think again. His corruption runs deep.
--
11,871 DEADLY TERROR ATTACKS SINCE 9/11~~SARAH BRIGHTMAN SYMPHONY WORLD TOUR |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to EPS
It's not the 10year initial period that's the problem.
It's when they change the name add another side-effect and apply for another 10 year patent. Of course they just taking their cue's from content owners who are up to what? The life of the creator plus 90 years? IF you can't make a profit after 10 years you don't deserve to. |
|
cho0b
join:2006-09-26
united state
| reply to La Luna
I wasn't blaming George Bush. I was asking him specifically what he thought about Bush and his signing statements. It was basically unrelated to the discussion going on.
Thanks though, it means a lot to me to be called clueless.  |
|
